Search

This research note is a contribution to an important on-going debate in British sociology on the operationalisation of class. A comprehensive framework is proposed based on three interrelated choices. All three choices have both theoretical and empirical elements. First, researchers must choose which conceptual scheme to employ--conventional occupational class or neo-Marxist social class categories. Second, what is to be the unit of analysis--the respondent or the household? Third, what is to be the degree of coverage? -- whether or not to include the economically inactive. Consideration of all three choices is followed by a discussion of their interrelations and consequences. We suggest an extended version of Erikson's solution which incorporates not only the unit of analysis decision but also the degree of coverage decision. Thus a respondent based measure covering the economically active only is appropriate for studies of production behaviour and attitudes (work position).Alternatively, a household based measure inclusive of the economically inactive is appropriate for studies of consumption behaviour and attitudes (market or class position). Acceptance of the extended Erikson solution leaves only the choice of conceptual scheme. Our indicated preference is for social class on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Finally, we recommend several ways of improving the quality of datasets with regard to the problem of operationalising class. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Government policy in response to the recession in Britain during the 1980s can be interpreted as an attempt to alter the balance of class forces in favour of capital or as an attempt to alter the balance of public and private sector production and consumption in favour of the latter. The limitations of previous research on radicalism and radicalization are reviewed and on the basis of a purposefully designed panel survey, class and sector theories are examined in terms of both attitudinal and behavioural data. The importance of distinguishing between the structure of radicalism and the process of radicalization was highlighted by the finding that the variables which explain the former are not the same as those that explain the latter. The basic class and sector models were confirmed: employees and public sector producers/consumers were found to be more radical than employers and private sector producers/consumers respectively. Most support for dominant values was evident among the capitalist class and public sector controllers emerged as the new vanguard of radicalism. Finally the persistence of a radical value system in contemporary Britain remains clearly associated with partisanship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dorfman is eulogized as the creator and curator of the definitive account of Veblen's life and work. He argued that Veblen was the archetypal marginal man and that this explains his dissenting contribution. Dissemination of Dorfman's pathography of Veblen led to its hegemony - until now. Andrew Veblen was the first to challenge Dorfman's portrait of his younger brother's life in the mid 1920s. He asserted that his family were not linguistically, socially or economically deprived. However, it was not until Dorfman's private papers became publicly available in the 1990s, that his flawed view of Veblen became more widely and comprehensively contested. An alternative appreciation of Veblen is advanced with reference to his experiences in general and the works of Bellamy, Morris and Ibsen in particular. Data sources include Dorfman's original tome, Andrew Veblen's extensive correspondence with Dorfman, and Veblen's own writings. It is concluded that Veblen's radical views are entirely congruent with his life experiences during an era of capitalist transformation. The moral of this saga is that a dose of Veblenian scepticism is essential to intellectual health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]